SDC vs LDC

[TBman]

Over time I gravitated towards using LDC mics. In the past when I used SDCs I always thought my recordings sounded brittle. Of course my recording areas that I used weren't treated and often outside noise (autos, airplanes, etc) crept into my recordings and had to be edited out.

I've noticed though that quite a few members prefer SDC mics for solo instrumentals and now I'm wondering maybe I made the wrong choice, but to tell the truth, in between my squeaks and other poor playing noises the tone I'm getting with my two WA mics is pleasant.

I have a Rode NT5, but my other SDC are much lesser quality (AKG Perception 150 and a MXL 991) so I really don't have a decent pair of SDC to use.

So which do you prefer, LDC or SDC and why?

[Gordon Currie]

I favor SDCs. They tend to be flatter response, and guitars can have some surprising frequency anomalies.

That said, I have heard fantastic acoustic guitar recordings done with LDCs.

(On voice, though, I am firmly in the LDC camp.)

A great LDC will outperform an average SDC on spot miking. If I was in your shoes, I would stick with the better quality LDC. Those Warm Audio microphones are pretty nice.

[keith.rogers]

Given the limitations of home recording, I stick with SDCs for acoustic instruments so I can get close enough without inducing too much proximity effect, but still capture the full range without also getting as much external noise as the LDCs can bring in. I will add an LDC if it seems like a good candidate (able instrument and player, nothing crazy going on outside to worry about, etc.), but I'm happy with a couple SDCs most of the time.

On voice I like an LDC, though just recently I paired a dynamic and LDC and just went with a mix of those (down to mono, effectively) and was pretty happy with that. I do get closer on voice because I like to have a little proximity effect to work with. But, I'm not recording operatic voices, either.

[b1j]

I’m still quite a neophyte. I’ve been working through this progression for solo acoustic guitar:
One LDC (Rode NT-1A)
Two LDCs (as above), XY
Two SDCs (matched sE8), XY and spaced pair

From reviews and price points, I’m assuming the NT-1A and sE8 are of comparable quality. I’ve been most pleased with the last setup (2 sE8, spaced pair).

There have been other variables, though: 1) medium distance vs. close mic (10”), 2) room and room position. As I’ve worked through the four mic setups above, I’ve migrated to close mics in our large room, and most recently moved to the room’s opposite end. I think that’s been best.

But one thing I’ve become convinced about: it’s not just the mics. Any of these mic setups would give far better results if I had an acoustically clean space. Not happening any time soon, though. That’s why I’m set on close mic’ing for now.

Back to the OP’s question: my LDCs seem to pick up more of the room sound than the SDCs do. I’ve liked mixing the SDC tracks more.

[rick-slo]

I prefer SD mikes (in my hands a more finely detailed sound on flattop guitar recordings). I do have nice SD mikes though (Gefell M-300s and M-295s).

[Rudy4]

Just to throw in the proverbial monkey wrench, don't forget that there's the MDC range, with those mics having 5/8" to 3/4" capsules.

Some mics can be deceptive, such as the 2020 which looks like an LDC but isn't.

Sweetwater's Microphone Guide explains small, medium, and large diaphragm size classifications

Size matters, but not as much as what the manufacturers do with it. The bottom line is to look at actual specifications to determine the physical capsule size, but base your decision on what YOU actually like the sound of.

There's a lot of hazy information on mics out there. I have a pair of Rode NT3 (medium diaphragm) mics that I like a bunch, but I also have a pair of Behringer C-2 SDCs that sell for 1/10th the price that actually sound pretty good.

[runamuck]

For me, the most significant thing is to be using high quality mics that aren't harsh and brittle. The significance of SCD or LCD is a distant second.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by runamuck

For me, the most significant thing is to be using high quality mics that aren't harsh and brittle. The significance of SCD or LCD is a distant second.

With runamuck on this, there are so many variables to SDC or LDC or one of each ---that really is very little in the way of a consensus any which way
My self currently I prefer my AEA N 22 active ribbon pair

[Doug Young]

I doubt anyone could pick out LD vs SD in general on a solo acoustic guitar recording. There'll be some differences between specific mics, but if we listened blind to, say 5 LD recordings and 5 SD recordings, with 5 different SD and LD mics, I certainly wouldn't be able to separate them correctly by diaphragm size.

I've been recording with both SDs and LDs at the same time, and choosing between them when I mix. but it's not really SD vs LD, it's just those two specific mics pairs and placements, and depending on the guitar, the song, and probably my mood at the time, I might pick one vs the other. On one recent recording, I ended up liking LD on the neck and SD on the bridge. You just never know.

[j3ffr0]

After many months of using SDC pairs as mains, I decided I wasn't 100% happy. I had maybe a little more environmental noise than I wanted and maybe and little too much emphasis on transients. Last thing I recorded was all LDCs and I'm happy enough with what I got that I'm going to use them again for the next one or few. A little less noise, and little less transient emphasis. I'm might be a little happier with the tone too, but that could be me getting better with the EQ and other aspects.

I agree that no one is likely to listen to a bunch of recordings and reliable say, yeah those are SDC or LDC.... there are too many other factors that are unknown to the listener that all make a huge difference. Mic positions, mic technique(s), mic polar patterns, mic models, room, guitar, player tendencies, EQ, compression, preamps, saturation, other mixing techniques. I can barely control for and calculate the effect of that stuff in my own recordings.

Maybe I will determine in a few months that LDCs work better for me. Or maybe I will be wrong. Or maybe I was wrong when I thought SDCs worked better for me. Or maybe I was right. Or maybe I'll decide it's LDCs for steel and SDCs for nylon. Who knows? not me. I'm not sure I'll ever even find out with certainty, but I'll keep trying to get to the bottom of the mystery.

[min7b5]

I’ve made albums with large diaphragm pairs, small diaphragm pairs, and combinations, I think it’s all good and differences are likely less than one might think from reading online -assuming we’re comparing the same pattern and set up. Personally where I notice the most difference is on and off axis. In set ups like ORTF, NOS, and XY, small diaphragms sound stronger to me for sure. Also the the classic mono tracking thing of being in front of the 12th fret but the mic looking further up the fretboard also sounds better to me with with small diaphragm mics. But tracking mono a little further out, on axis and pointed, say, just over the soundhole with a large diaphram is sound I like a lot.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

it's not really SD vs LD, it's just those two specific mics pairs and placements, and depending on the guitar, the song, and probably my mood at the time, I might pick one vs the other. On one recent recording, I ended up liking LD on the neck and SD on the bridge. You just never know.

My recording knowledge has a longs ways to go, however I do think that Doug is spot on. It is more about Mic positioning and the effects of that position in relation to the playing style, the guitar and the specific tune.

LCD and SCD react in slightly different ways. Here are some edited excerpts from one source:
"Directional mics have a rise in low-frequency response when used close to a sound source. It’s called the proximity effect. An SDC tends to roll off more at low frequencies than an LDC. Emphasizes the mid-lows in an SDC. Emphasizes the deep lows in an LDC.

What this tells me is in some cases SDC's and LDC's might need to be positioned at different distances. Maybe LDC's have to be a bit further out to relinquish the ill effects of too much proximity?

Originally Posted by min7b5

I’ve made albums with large diaphragm pairs, small diaphragm pairs, and combinations, I think it’s all good and differences are likely less than one might think from reading online.

Personally where I notice the most difference is on and off axis

But tracking mono a little further out, on axis and pointed, say, just over the soundhole with a large diaphragm is sound I like a lot.

Off Axis characteristics is such an interesting subject matter. When does OFF Axis response make a difference? Well, I can only theorize. Possibly with more dynamic playing where the soundboard is releasing sounds at a higher level from all areas of the soundboard. As compared to softer playing where the dominating volume is coming directly from the soundhole.

Thus there is the possibility for a dynamic player, the better off axis response of a SDC might suit his purposes better. However, if you move the LDC farther back, then in a matter of speaking the LDC picks up a wider angle range. Using an example of a shotgun with birdshot: At a close distance the pattern will be small. At a further distance the pattern the BB's cover will be larger.

A few months ago I experimented with my large diaphragm, A bit farther away & centered, but positioned from under the soundhole. I also got a nice big, warm sound. Proximity seemingly had less effect. Thanks for bringing this up Eric. I look forward to experimenting with my LDC further using some of your observations.

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

...A few months ago I experimented with my large diaphragm, A bit farther away & centered, but positioned from under the soundhole. I also got a nice big, warm sound. Proximity seemingly had less effect. Thanks for bringing this up Eric. I look forward to experimenting with my LDC further using some of your observations.

Maybe try going a foot and half away, looking down at the guitar, shooting just over the top of the upper waist. Like at your sternum. To me it kinda sounds how I personally hear the guitar. And I’ve heard it used by singers as a good spot to get a nice balance between the guitar and voice in mono. I hesitate to leave this here as a quick example https://youtu.be/zlq6fo5Zt2c as it's just a quick personal tester I did yesterday in my tiny, untreated, office, etc, that I planned to try again today as this is little boomy for me... (I’ll leave this unlisted and probably take it down in a few days. But this is just my Ear Trumpet Labs Delfina in mono, like I said, just maybe 18 inches out, pointed down just above the guitar and directly above the soundhole. Not saying it's what I would use for a public facing recording, but it's a kinda fun fast and easy way to do it.

[rick-slo]

As microphone manufactures say the smaller diameter diaphram will (at least usually) handel transients with more detail than a larger diameter one.
Whether that is more or less noticeable in the final raw recording and post recording processing depends and numerous variables. If one does notice
a difference which is preferred is also variable.

[b1j]

This is a fun discussion. The more I reflect on my recent experience, the more I understand why the room is the main determinant of the sound.

It would be fun to go into a finely treated space and use a spaced SDC pair about 2 feet from their target spots — not the ten inches I use to compensate for my room — and a pair of L and R LDCs about ten feet away and ten feet apart. Probably that’s gilding the lily, but I wonder what you could do with those two stereo tracks.

But in my room, I don’t need to bother with trying a setup like that!